When I was sixteen, I was run over by a car and spent a week on the couch in the living room, pleasantly numbed by muscle relaxants. I watched a lot of bad television, but I still remember on British miniseries I saw on PBS. It was about a Marxist who was voted into the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. The series climaxed when the media tycoons who had been using their televisions and newspapers to fabricates stories in order to bring the PM down force him to give a speech announcing his retirement. When the PM asks the head mogul why he was tampering with Great Britain’s democracy, the mogul declares that he was not about to see a Marxist take away everything his family had created. “I have ancestors.” he told the PM.
But when the time came for the live speech, the PM did not resign. Instead, he used the speech to lay out the machinations of his enemies. When the mogul attempted to end the broadcast, he was prevented by the head technician. “I have ancestors, too,” he said as he kept the cameras rolling. John Kerry did something today that very much reminded me of that scene.
Speaking of the Bush Administration Kerry asked:
The scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” Kerry told the congregation at New North Side Baptist Church. “When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?”
Bush’s response was predictably shrill and ridiculous:
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry’s comment “was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack.”
As usual, when faced with a criticism, the Bush Administration runs from the substance and attempts to smear the critic. Anyone who says their favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ had best be prepared to defend his actions in the light of Jesus’ teachings.
And that, of course, is the real rub. For far too long, the right wing has gulled the media and the country into thinking that its religion was the only acceptable face of Christianity. It has used the respect for all religions on the left as evidence of the left’s irreligiosity. That has never been the case. The teachings of Jesus Christ are at the core of how millions define their support for liberal causes, myself included. John Kerry, with one small statement, has reminded the nation of that fact. Millions of us are liberal because of our religion. Millions of us are not represented by Opus Dei, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or any of the other right wing talking heads the media turns to when it wants to “discuss” religion in this country. Antonin Scalia does not speak for all Catholics.
And Kerry’s statement is also a very Catholic statement. Catholics grow up immersed in the doctrine of works — that faith alone will not save you, your own efforts are required. Catholic doctrine also highlights the biblical injunctions to aid your neighbors, and the defense of life and dignity throughout a person’s entire time on this earth. Kerry, like so many of us, has merged those strands of theology into a world view that compels us to be liberals, in action and thought if not always in name. Kerry’s statement shows a depth of understanding about Catholicism that a million of Karl Rove’s carefully crafted photo-ops could never hope to discredit. Every Catholic who hears that speech will hear a little bit of their upbringing.
The language of religion has always been spoken comfortably on the left, even if the principle of tolerance has caused it to occasionally be spoken too quietly. John Kerry is not speaking quietly now. Whatever George W. Bush may desire, whatever the editors of the Washington Post and New York Times may decree, Christianity and faith are not the property of the right wing. I have a faith, too, as does John Kerry and millions of others. It is strong, and sincere, and, as Kerry has reminded us, powerful. And in the face of provocation and distortion, it has no reason to be silent.
March 29th, 2004
|
Religion |
25 comments
That’s what the Bush Administration would have you believe, anyway. But a surrender to terrorists doesn’t look like this:
Spain’s incoming government, under pressure over plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq, has agreed to double its military presence in Afghanistan to 250 soldiers this summer, an aide to the future defense minister said Monday.
The Socialist party insisted that its plans on Iraq remain firm. A poll released Monday said 72 percent of Spaniards agree with its position.
Admittedly, 250 troops still isn’t much, but at least this time the troops are being sent to the place where the actual terrorists are.
March 29th, 2004
|
Politics |
8 comments
There has been much discussion recently, both here and elsewhere, concerning the escalating violence in the NHL, and about whether and what the NHL should do about it. Some have suggested automatic suspensions for fighting (similar to what baseball has done). Others have suggested stiffer fines and penalties, but not necessarily suspensions. Still others have suggested that fighting is part of the game, and that the NHL should let it go.
But nobody has asked the Libertarians for their solution to the problem, and I’m pretty sure I know what it would be:
Arm the players.
Think about it: Bertuzzi would think twice about sucker-punching Steve Moore if he knew that Moore and all of his Avalanche teammates were packing Ruger 10/22’s, wouldn’t he? And I bet Wade Belak would have done a better job controlling his stick if he knew Ossi Vaananen and his mates were carrying Glocks.
In addition to cutting down on the on-ice punching and-slashing, we’d get some exciting new penalties (”#9 Dallas, two minutes for brandishing.”), and the terms “penalty killing unit” and “shot stopped by Thibault” would gain new meaning.
It’s not a perfect idea, however. This being a Canadian league, something would have to be done about Canada’s oppressive anti-gun legislation. Since handguns would be out, the players would have to carry hunting rifles, and that would get cumbersome while also carrying a hockey stick. And I imagine any gun would be difficult to fire with those big gloves they wear.
Still, it’s worth exploring…
March 29th, 2004
|
Libertarian Problem Solving |
7 comments
Madeleine Begun Kane and Nathan Newman are both contributing to a new essay collection about Bush. Congratualtions to both of them!
Link via Skippy.
March 29th, 2004
|
Bloggin |
no comments
If you live in Tennessee, call your state representatives and ask them to support HB2783/SB2743. If passed, it would ban the sale of junk food from vending machines in K-8 schools during school hours. The following would be allowed:
(A) Whole grain, enriched or fortified grains or grain products;
(B) Fruits or one hundred percent (100%) fruit juices;
(C) Water;
(D) Milk or dairy products;
(E) Soy-based products;
(F) Vegetables or vegetable juices;
(G) Electrolyte-replacement beverages; or
(H) Nuts, nut spreads, seeds, legumes or trail mixes.
Doritos and candy bars would be out. Personally, I’d do away with the sports drinks, too, but you have to choose your battles. Of course, I’m sure the Libertarians would expect third-graders to exercise Personal Snacking Responsibilitytm, but most of us live in the real world. And if parents want to allow their kids to eat candy bars and Doritos, they may still do so — just pack them in your kids’ lunch.
Just to show my age a bit, none of my schools even had vending machines. The school cafeteria was it.
More information at healtymemphis.org.
March 29th, 2004
|
Health, Libertarian Problem Solving |
8 comments
This is a frightening story as much for what the Times leaves out as for what it says. Apparently, a suicide bomb went off at a police station in Uzbekistan. The government, one of the most oppressive and horrific, is quick to tie it to their opposition.
Kadyrov said the materials used in the explosives were similar to those used in a series of simultaneous bombings in Tashkent in 1999, an alleged assassination attempt against President Islam Karimov, which was blamed on the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
But Safayev declined to say whether Monday’s attack could have been linked to ongoing operations in Pakistan’s border regions, in which a top IMU leader, Tahir Yuldash, was wounded, according to Pakistani officials.
If the link to Hizb-ut-Tahrir is confirmed, it would mark the first time the group has been implicated directly in a terrorist attack. The group claims to be nonviolent, but Uzbek authorities in the past have strongly insisted that it was a breeding ground for terrorists, justifying their crackdown on independent Muslims.
“Justifying the crackdown on independent Muslims” That is an interesting way to describe an oppressive police state that uses such methods as boiling people alive to crack down. According to the article, we know these things:
1)Police stations were attacked
2)Police in a market were attacked
3)These are the first suicide bombings in Uzbekistan
4)There is some kind of crackdown of Muslims going on in the country, perhaps justified by these attacks.
In other words, it paints an incomplete picture. Considering the horrible oppression in Uzbekistan, and considering that help form the United States is now seen as impossible, it is likely that the resistance has turned to outside terrorists for help. In other words, by ignoring the obvious reality that oppression breeds resistance, the Bush Administration may have helped to push the population of another country into the arms of al-Queda.
March 29th, 2004
|
Politics |
no comments
The CPA just shut down and anti-American newspaper in Baghdad. People were not amused:
American soldiers shut down a popular Baghdad newspaper on Sunday and tightened chains across the doors after the occupation authorities accused it of printing lies that incited violence.
Thousands of outraged Iraqis protested the closing as an act of American hypocrisy, laying bare the hostility many feel toward the United States a year after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Advertisement
“No, no, America!” and “Where is democracy now?” screamed protesters who hoisted banners and shook clenched fists in a hastily organized rally against the closing of the newspaper, Al Hawza, a radical Shiite weekly.
The rally drew hundreds and then thousands by nightfall in central Baghdad, where masses of angry Shiite men squared off against a line of American soldiers who rushed to seal off the area.
What’s worse, the CPA appears to have violated its own laws in order to close the paper:
Many newspapers and television stations have sprouted in Iraq since the fall of the Hussein government. But under a law passed by the occupying authorities in June, a news media organization must be licensed, and that license can be revoked if the organization publishes or broadcasts material that incites violence or civil disorder or “advocates alterations to Iraq’s borders by violent means.”
But the letter outlining the reasons for taking action against Al Hawza did not cite any material that directly advocated violence. Several Iraqi journalists said that meant there was no basis to shut Al Hawza down.
In doing so, they have turned a radical paper into a symbol of broad-based American contempt for Iraqis:
But the letter outlining the reasons for taking action against Al Hawza did not cite any material that directly advocated violence. Several Iraqi journalists said that meant there was no basis to shut Al Hawza down.
“That paper might have been anti-American, but it should be free to express its opinion,” said Kamal Abdul Karim, night editor of the daily Azzaman.
Omar Jassem, a freelance reporter, said he thought that democracy meant many viewpoints and many newspapers. “I guess this is the Bush edition of democracy,” he said.
Tom Rosenstiel, vice chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said there was a basic irony in Americans’ practicing censorship in Iraq.
“If you’re trying to promote democracy in a country that has never had it, you have to lead by example,” Mr. Rosenstiel said. “I’m not in Iraq. But it’s hard for me to see how the suppression of information, even false information, is going to help our cause.”
This move has forced legitimate journalists to support it, despite its record of dishonesty.
The people running the CPA apparently don’t have a clue how to operate in Iraq. If they were not prepared to counter the half truths of an anti-American paper with something other than the tactics of Saddam Hussein, then they should never have been appointed in the first place. This is a terrible failure on the part of Bremer. It erodes Iraqi faith in America’s intentions and gives legitimacy to the Baghdad equivalent of a newspaper tabloid. Short of shooting the editors, I don’t see how this could have been handled any worse.
March 29th, 2004
|
Politics |
one comment
You know, when you are attacking someone else’s credibility it helps to not contradict yourself
Mr. Bush wanted to know “did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?” Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.”
(snip)
The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda.
March 29th, 2004
|
Politics, Iraq |
no comments
